Ruthless Aggression

Don’t Fall For The “Your A Militant” Bullshit!

This article is about an idea in which Black people pursue their political interests with ruthless aggression. If they call you militant, so what? If they call you racist, so what? Think about it: are they calling you these things because you are these things, or because of the threat you pose at their ability to continue mistreating you politically, socially, and economically unopposed?

If President Biden Is Genuine In His Appreciation Of Black Support…

In the War on Terror, the United States government went after those it saw as a threat to its’ interests with ruthless aggression: countries were targeted, cities were destroyed, and hundreds of thousands perished in this country’s pursuit of its’ national security interests.

Joe Biden, our newly elected president, played a major role in American foreign policy as a senator, and later as vice president. In his first speech as president elect, he acknowledged that Black people were instrumental in his successful bid for the White House, even going as far as to say, “You’ve always had my back, and now I have yours.” He can show us that he truly has our backs by pursuing racists just as strongly as previous administrations pursued Muslim extremists in the War on Terror—ruthless aggression.

The First Amendment Con

The First Amendment does not protect hate speech; it allows us within reason to speak freely. Rational people understand this, given the fact that a lot people do not critically think before they act and the potential for violence this presents.

Racists that try and use the First Amendment to justify their hateful rhetoric should be criminalized and then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They should be rounded up, thrown in jail, and fined for hate speech, which should be considered an act of terrorism in itself. This is what I would like to see as a Black American, and as a voter.

Demand That Your Government Looks Out For Your Interests

Dylan Storm Roof, the American piece of filth that killed nine innocent Black people during a church service, was driven to Burger King by police officers (race soldiers) where he enjoyed a nice, little snack before being hauled off to jail.  Within days, his act of terrorism was forgiven by way too many Black people.  Instead of forgiving, we collectively should’ve been in the streets hunting him down ourselves. He now sits on death row, where he will remain for only God knows how long.  The government should have taken him out back, blindfolded and shot him.  This is what it would have done if it were a just government.  What’s the point of our tax dollars sustaining him as a prisoner if he is responsible for such a horrendous crime, and unrepentant?  Why go through the trouble of keeping him around, just shoot him—ruthless aggression.

A Judicial System That Works For You

The courts are too generous to racists: the standard for proving that a person or business has practiced racism against a Black person is extremely too high.  Currently, the plaintiff has the almost impossible task of meeting the “but for” standard: meaning that he or she has to prove that racism is the only motivating factor in any kind of discriminatory action.  So, if you’re mistreated because of your race but your employer cites other reasons for its’ discrimination that may or may not be true, your employer has a good chance of avoiding justice, regardless of how strong the evidence for your discrimination case is.   

The courts need judges willing to come down hard on racists. In fact, they need to come down so hard that the message is made clear to all the other bigots in this country: anyone that practices racism against others stand to pay dearly. There are too many sympathetic White judges, and too many scary Black judges; it’s pathetic.

Our Politicians Are Not Behaving In A Manner Worthy Of Leadership

Too many politicians in this country are trash: they are dishonest, narrow minded, and motivated only by selfishness.  The advent of Trump and alternative facts was predictable years ago to any critical observer.  The 24 hour news cycle, which began in the early 80s, feeds American’s appetite for sensationalism, and the politicians serve themselves up as a main course on this noxious dish.

They do not have the courage to use their legislative powers to solve problems; instead, too many of them orient their political energies and efforts towards satisfying the American voter, who have shown themselves to be uninformed, ignorant, cheap beer drinking, nasty racist bigots.  And while in the Donald Trump era the propensity for dishonesty has drastically increased, dishonesty in its present form, a form that is a function of the need to appease a voting television audience, has existed since the beginning of the 24 hour news cycle and the need to constantly satisfy an ever growing appetite for sensationalized content, at the expense of good legislation and truth.

Politicians who align themselves with racists in their rhetoric should immediately be removed from their positions.  Like those who support “terrorists” overseas, their accounts should be frozen, and they should be taken off of the streets.  These people are no less dangerous than those they label terrorists, and should be treated as such–ruthless aggression.  

Summing Up

To sum up, we should look for politicians that will pursue our interests with ruthless aggression, and go after racists with the same intensity and determination as they did Muslim extremists in the War on Terror.  

Racist rhetoric should not be allowed, and should be punishable by fines and/or prison time.  Acts of racism, just like acts of terrorism, should also not be allowed, and should be punishable by fines and/or prison time as well.  

And lastly, the standard for proving racism in court needs to be lowered significantly, and politicians who vote for judges that are disagreeable with this should lose their positions.  

Are these positions militant?  Are they racist?  My question to you is this: who cares?  The most important thing to ask is this: are these positions conducive towards political, social, and economic success, however we define it? 

Leave a Reply